Lesher v. Hynes
19 N.Y.3d 57
NY2012Background
- Mondrowitz indictment in 1984 for sexual-abuse charges; he fled to Israel, extradition attempts previously stalled due to then-applicable treaty; Lesher sought Mondrowitz-related records under FOIL in 1998 and 2007; DA denied 2008 FOIL request citing law-enforcement exemption for ongoing case; Appellate Division and Supreme Court engaged in balancing disclosure vs. interference with prosecution; Israeli decision in 2010-2011 suggested finality of extradition prospects; Court ultimately upheld the withholding approach and affirmed the Appellate Division’s ruling.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FOIL §87(2)(e)(i) applies to extradition-related records in an ongoing prosecution | Lesher argues exemption does not extend to extradition records | DA argues records pertain to ongoing enforcement and thus are exempt | Yes, exemption applies in context of ongoing enforcement proceedings |
| Whether a generic showing of interference suffices for withholding rather than document-specific showing | Discipline requires document-by-document interference showing | Generic categories suffice to show potential interference | Generic showing of interference sufficient under Pittari/Legal Aid Society framework |
| Whether the records identified by DA (extradition correspondence) fall within exempt category given ongoing prosecution | Records are extradition-related and not part of prosecution | Records were integral to prosecution and extradition efforts | Records fall within exempt category due to potential interference with enforcement |
| Effect of Israeli extradition developments on FOIL exemption applicability | Improved prospects of extradition do not affect exemption | Changed circumstances may render records non-exempt | Exemption remains viable as long as proceedings could interfere; post-Israeli decision may end ongoing proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- NLRB v. Robbins Tire & Rubber Co., 437 U.S. 214 (1978) (Exemption 7A allows generic determinations of likely interference)
- Pittari v. Pirro, 258 A.D.2d 202 (2d Dept 1999) (Generic denial acceptable; not required to show interference for each document)
- Legal Aid Socy. v. New York City Police Dept., 274 A.D.2d 207 (1st Dept 2000) (Similar rationale for withholding records under law-enforcement exemption)
- Department of Justice v. Reporters Comm. for Freedom of Press, 489 U.S. 749 (1989) (Legislative history of FOIA Exemption 7A guiding interpretation)